(wfp) - going global

COAA – CII JOINT INITIATIVE

IMPLEMENTATION OF WORKFACE

PLANNING THROUGH

ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING

COAA BEST PRACTICE XX

MAY 16, 2012

1

1. Overview of joint venture (5 min)

2. CII RT272 Phase I Background (10 min)

3. Thrust areas

a. Process & Functional (5 min)

b. Contracts (3 min)

4. Survey (30 min)

5. Q&A (30 min)

6. Wrap up (10 min)

AGENDA

2

Presented by Glen Warren, COAA 3

WorkFace Planning is the process of organizing and

delivering all the elements necessary, before work is

started, to enable craft persons to perform quality

work in a safe ,effective and efficient manner.

4

� COAA commenced development of WorkFace Planning

Best Practice 2003 – 2005.

� Concentrated on Construction Phase of Project with

goal of increasing Tool Time 25% by reducing Wait

Times.

� Developed Rules and Scorecards

� Introduced Contract Language to accommodate WFP

5

� Developed FIWP Templates.

� Developed and Delivered Training Courses.

� Developed Path of Construction Best Practice

� Introduced Concept for Designated Occupations

� Flowchart of WFP Process thru Project Lifetime

6

� CWP Best Practice

� Introduced series of WFP Conferences.

� Flowchart updated to include Swim lanes:

COAA WorkFace Planning Project Integration

7

Why is it not working?

� Productivity was not improving to extent anticipated with

implementing WFP.

� Constructors who were getting high marks utilizing

guidelines of COAA WFP Scorecards not consistently

getting higher productivities.

� Realization that problems were still occurring in

transfer of Front End Deliverables complete, on time

and in right sequence to Contractors.8

� COAA WFP Committee was given mandate to provide

guidelines for Front End Processes to support the

deliverables required for successful implementation of

WFP on project.

� CII had just published and presented “IR 272-2

Enhanced Work Packaging” which is their latest

implementation resource.

9

ADVANCED WORK PACKAGING

WORKFACE PLANNING

Project

Setup

Interactive

Planning

CWP’s

EWP’S IWP’S

Front End

Construction

Commissioning

Start Up

� Work together to update RT-272 and COAA Best

Practices and integrate into an industry standard

Recommended Practice for Implementation of

Advanced Work Packaging (of which WFP will

continue to cover the Construction Phase as well as

the Commissioning and Start Up.)

� Develop and Strengthen Processes and Procedures

in the Front End to Support WFP.

� Integrate definitions, metrics and language.11

� Processes

� Functionality (Organization)

� Contract Language

� Maturity Assessment

� Presentation of RT272 (joint) at the CII

Annual Meeting in summer 2013

12

Presented by Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang

RT 272 – Enhanced Work Packaging: Design through Work Face Execution

13

14

Steve Autry, ConocoPhillips

Richard Buxo, SNC-Lavalin

Doug House, Zachry Industrial Inc.

Mark Hunter, Bechtel

John Hyland, Lauren Engineers &

Constructors

Jose LaRota, Southern Company

Fernanda Leite, The University of

Texas at Austin

Brendan Lynam, Kvaerner

Sarah Meeks, The University of

Texas at Austin

Robin Mikaelsson, Bentley

Systems, Inc

Bill O’Brien, The University of Texas

at Austin

Mark Parsons, KBR

Randy Paulson, Progress Energy

Sean Pellegrino, Chevron

Jim Rammell, Wood Group Mustang

Jim Vicknair,WorleyParsons

Enhanced Work Packaging

� Learn about work packaging across project life

cycle; understand terms

� Recognize benefits of enhanced work packaging

� Understand model process for project life cycle and

field implementation of work packaging

� Examine case studies

� Consider recommendations for action

15

� Has been done on every project since the pyramids

� Is a formal/informal process of understanding and

performing field work

� Is accomplished inconsistently

16

� Takes a proactive, structured approach to managing

constraints at the work face

� Involves deliberate, early planning to support execution

� Holistically incorporates the full

project life cycle

� Gives supervisors more field time

17

� Improved productivity

� Predictable performance

� Standardized field execution practices

18

� Direct labor accounts for 25% to 40% of construction

installed costs

� Labor productivity is the cost area most influenced by

engineering and construction management practices

� Increased productivity improves safety, cost, schedule, and

quality

19

Improved labor productivity means

improved, more predictable

performance

� Cleaner, safer jobsite

� Alignment from engineering to construction

� Better craft retention

� Better turnover to commissioning/operations

� Improved project execution predictability

� Cost and schedule savings

20

Current challenges:

» Inconsistent terminology

» Need for standardization of work packaging

» Lack of guidelines around implementation of work

packaging

» Little documentation of work packaging practices

21

� Common Language � Definitions

� Recommended Practice Model

� Tools

� Case Studies

22

Definitions Practice Model Tools Case Studies

� Work Packaging

� Work Face Planning (WFP)

� Work Face Planner

� Engineering Work Package (EWP)

� Construction Work Package (CWP)

� Installation Work Package (IWP)

23


24

Project OverallCWPEWPIWP

25


Definitions Practice Model Tools Case Studies26


1. Assessment Tool

2. IWP Checklist

3. Scorecard

32

33

Ten case studies

» Identified current

practices

» Determined ranges of

implementation

» Documented lessons

learned

» Performed validation

Several industries

» power

» oil & gas

» government

» commercial


34

Productivity & Predictability


35

Advanced Work Packaging

Presented by Michael Bankes, Fluor

RT 272 – Work Face Planning: from Project Definition

through Site Execution

36


37


� Thorough comparison and review of:

�COAA WorkFace Planning Integration Flowchart

�CII WorkFace Packaging Integration Flowchart

�COAA CWP Chart

�CII IWP Lifecycle Chart

� Ties to organizational functional requirements

� Ties to individual capabilities and responsibilities


� CWP Template

� EWP Template

� (F)IWP Template

� Other supporting examples and templates


� Reviewing terminology and definitions

� Simple Project

� Single Construction Work Area

� Multiple CWP’s & EWP’s

� Demonstrate Correlation between CWP/EWP & CWP/(F)IWP


Presented by Al Wahlstrom, COAA 42


The implementation of Advanced work packaging will need

to be an Owner driven program. As a result it will be

necessary to provide direction to contractors through

bidding documents and contracts. The COAA/CII joint

venture Contracts Team will:

1. Review contractual requirements and contracting

strategies,

2. Suggest what issues contracts should include,

3. Determine how workFace Planning should be included

in various forms of executions strategies 43Advanced Work Packaging

The Contracts Team will provide the following:

1. Review requirements of Advanced Work Packaging

and determine those issues that would require a directive

from Owner.

2. Develop a report that will provide recommendations

for the application of Advanced Work Packaging in the

development of bid documents or contracts for

engineering, procurement and construction.

44Advanced Work Packaging

45


1. Assessment Tool

2. IWP Checklist

3. Scorecard


Bill O’Brien, Olfa Hamdi

University of Texas at Austin

RT 272

48

49

The questions of the survey are divided into 4 sets of

questions:

A. Participants' background

B. WorkFace Planning knowledge and resources

C. Perceptions of WorkFace Planning

D. Barriers to implementation

53

WorkFace Planning perceived advantages

54

1 2 3 4

Unknown Cost/ROI

Too much up-front spending

Perceived increased indirect costs

Too difficult to understand

Too big a culture shift; resistance to change;

Engineering doesn’t work this way

(tradition/culture/competition)

Resource capability/skills lacking in my organization

Owners lack skills / responsiveness to make decisions

Owner PMO

Owners cannot drive the process

1. Significant barrier/ challenge ( prevents WFP implementation)

2. Moderate barrier (limits effective WFP execution)

3. Limited barrier (can be overcome during the WFP implementation process)

4. Not a barrier

55

1 2 3 4

WFP not in contract; lacks contractual clarity

Contracts don’t support integrated teams/outcomes

Lack of definition around standard procedures

Existing tools and systems don’t support WFP

processes

Software not available

Data and information protocols prevent data sharing

1. Significant barrier/ challenge ( prevents WFP implementation)

2. Moderate barrier (limits effective WFP execution)

3. Limited barrier (can be overcome during the WFP implementation process)

4. Not a barrier

(wfp) - going global

Documents